Cases On Due Process And Equal Protection.docx

Constitutional Law 2 Prepared by: Atty. Judiel M. Pareja Please read the following cases. DUE PROCESS 1.

Ynot vs. IAC, March 20, 1987

FACTS Here, the constitutionality of former President Marcos’s Executive Order No. 626-A is assailed. Said order decreed an absolute ban on the inter-provincial transportation of carabao (regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose) and carabeef. The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) may see fit, in the case of carabeef. In the case of carabaos, these shall be given to deserving farmers as the Director of Animal Industry (AI) may also see fit. Petitioner had transported six (6) carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo. These were confiscated by the police for violation of the above order. He sued for recovery, which the RTC granted upon his filing of a supersedeas bond worth 12k. After trial on the merits, the lower court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos, and as they can no longer be produced, directed the confiscation of the bond. It deferred from ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order, on the grounds of want of authority and presumed validity. On appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, such ruling was upheld. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. On the main, petitioner asserts that EO 626-A is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation, and that its penalty suffers from invalidity because it is imposed without giving the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court—as guaranteed by due process. ISSUE Whether EO 626-A is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process clause. HELD YES. To warrant a valid exercise of police power, the following must be present: (a) that the interests of the public, generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference, and; (b) that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose. In US v. Toribio, the Court has ruled that EO 626 complies with the above requirements—that is, the carabao, as a poor man’s tractor so to speak, has a direct relevance to the public welfare and so is a lawful subject of the order, and that the method chosen is also reasonably necessary for the purpose sought to be achieved and not unduly oppressive. The ban of the slaughter of carabaos except those seven years old if male and eleven if female upon issuance of a permit adequately works for the conservation of those still fit for farm work or breeding, and prevention of their improvident depletion. Here, while EO 626-A has the same lawful subject, it fails to observe the second requirement. Notably, said EO imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement. The object of the prohibition is unclear. The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the disputed measure is missing. It is not clear how the interprovincial transport of the animals can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, as they can be killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than in another. Obviously, retaining them in one province will not prevent their slaughter there, any more that moving them to another will make it easier to kill them there. Even if assuming there was a reasonable relation

between the means and the end, the penalty is invalid as it amounts to outright confiscation, denying petitioner a chance to be heard. Unlike in the Toribio case, here, no trial is prescribed and the property being transported is immediately impounded by the police and declared as forfeited for the government. Concededly, there are certain occasions when notice and hearing can be validly dispensed with, such as summary abatement of a public nuisance, summary destruction of pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs. However, these are justified for reasons of immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and urgency of the need to correct it. In the instant case, no such pressure is present. The manner by which the disposition of the confiscated property also presents a case of invalid delegation of legislative powers since the officers mentioned (Chairman and Director of the NMIC and AI respectively) are granted unlimited discretion. The usual standard and reasonable guidelines that said officers must observe in making the distribution are nowhere to be found; instead, they are to go about it as they may see fit. Obviously, this makes the exercise prone to partiality and abuse, and even corruption. 2. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators vs. City of Manila, July 31, 1967 Facts: On June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of Manila passed Ordinance No. 4760 with the following provisions questioned for its violation of due process: refraining from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer unless it fills out a prescribed form in the lobby in open view; prohibiting admission o less than 18 years old; usurious increase of license fee to P4,500 and 6,000 o 150% and 200% respectively (tax issue also); making unlawful lease or rent more than twice every 24 hours; and cancellation of license for subsequent violation. The lower court issued preliminary injunction and petitioners raised the case to SC on certiorari. Issue: Is the ordinance compliant with the due process requirement of the constitution? Held: Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals. There is no violation o constitutional due process for being reasonable and the ordinance is enjoys the presumption of constitutionality absent any irregularity on its face. Taxation may be made to implement a police power and the amount, object, and instance of taxation is dependent upon the local legislative body. Judgment of lower court reversed and injunction lifted. 3. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Panaguiton, July21, 1978

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Namil vs. COMELEC, October, 28, 2003 NHA vs. Evangelista, May 16, 2005 Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon Olalia, April 19, 2007 Saiaw vs. NLRC, Sept. 27, 1991 PO2 Montoya vs. Police Director Varilla, Dec. 18, 2008 Ateneo de Manila vs. Hon. Capulong, May 27, 1993 Sang-an vs. Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, Inc., Feb. 13, 2013 EQUAL PROTECTION

1.

Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, February 17, 1968

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, November 11, 1993 Tiu vs. CA, January 20, 1999 Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, December 15, 2004 City of Manila vs. Hon. Laguio, April 12, 2005 Quinto vs. COMELEC, February 22, 2010 Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, December 07, 2010 Garcia vs. Hon. Drilon, June 25, 2013